Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually it would be interesting to hear someone delinate a clear distinction between taxation on money and taxation in kind. There is no clear distinction. Fred Foldvary there does seem to be, on some emotional level, a difference David There is no distinction between taxation in money vesus in kind as pertains to the act of taxation, i.e. taxation qua taxation. There are indeed differences in costs, based on subjective preferences, i.e. the utility of money relative to the item in kind. The burden on a horse of carrying a saddle depends not just on the weight of the load, but also how it the weight is distributed. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aren't payments in kind worth less than payments in cash, when the value is a significant portion of one's income, because they impose the consumption decision (for lack of a better term) on the individual? Yes, assuming no tax difference. Many payments are made in kind today because the employee does not have to pay an income tax on it, or because it is tax deductible for the employer but not for the employee. Note, however, that psychic income is paid in kind. If that is true, then maybe taxes in kind may be analogous? Just a guess. Yes, taxes in cash are in general preferred to taxes in kind, such as to be drafted into the military or serve on a jury. There is an economic difference, but no moral difference in terms of being coercive. The tax of restrictive regulations is paid in kind. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually it would be interesting to hear someone delinate a clear distinction between taxation on money and taxation in kind. There is no clear distinction. Money is a medium, and the underlying reality is goods exchanging for other goods. If you have a ticket for a show which costs $5 plus $1 in tax, the tax is not really on the ticket, but on the show. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
In a message dated 12/4/02 1:14:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually it would be interesting to hear someone delinate a clear distinction between taxation on money and taxation in kind. There is no clear distinction. Money is a medium, and the underlying reality is goods exchanging for other goods. If you have a ticket for a show which costs $5 plus $1 in tax, the tax is not really on the ticket, but on the show. Fred Foldvary I'm inclined to think there is no clear distinction, which is why I asked the original author of the comment (js I believe) to provide one. Still I must admit that there does seem to be, on some emotional level, a difference among having one's goods confiscated, being forced to perform manual labor or other services not of a sexual nature, and being forced to perform sexual services. Without being able to draw any clean lines of distinction myself, I just not that the second seems more invasive than the first, and the third more in vasive than the second. David
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'Actually it would be interesting to hear someone delinate a clear distinction between taxation on money and taxation in kind.'...I'm inclined to think there is no clear distinction,which is why I asked the original author of the comment (js I believe) to provide one. I don't think it was me, I think it was in response to something I wrote. Aren't payments in kind worth less than payments in cash, when the value is a significant portion of one's income, because they impose the consumption decision (for lack of a better term) on the individual? I thought I remember learning how that was modeled, but it was a while ago. If that is true, then maybe taxes in kind may be analogous? Just a guess. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
I apologize for being flip. I hope I did at least get a smile. Seriously, I think that I tend to believe, and I think what Machiavelli was driving at, is that in a free society we all agree to participate peacefully and not try to usurp power and authority. The 2000 election was a good example, in my limited judgement, because it seems that in many places (and eras) an event like that could have easily occasioned serious violence. The logical leap to the case of the bum I assume is my own. I cannot ask Machiavelli how he feels about it. When I see a bum begging, it seems to me that he could just as easily prey on innocent people as pray for their goodwill. Of course, one could argue that the penalty for crime is severe and it is better to be an honest beggar than an inmate. I question the weight of this argument since crime (for lack of a better term) seems to be endemic to the human condition. The peaceful beggar doesn't seem to benefit too greatly from society's largesse. Through a series of bad decisions, a few strokes of bad luck, or an inability to obtain adequate mental health care, inter alia, he has become homeless and remedy has not been obtained--since he remains homeless. Yet he still participates in civic society. Were I in his place, I'm not so sure I'd be so civil. This does not make the bum superior to me. I could easily view him as a non-productive blight offensive to the eye and (yuck!) nose, and seek to have him banished through my influence with the polity or by threats and harassment. But I don't. Hence, I consider the debt to be reciprocal. Does that make sense? It's one of those things that is difficult for me to put into words. To put another way, every civil member of a free and civic society owes a debt to every other civil member seems to me to be a guideline far superior to the Golden Rule. -jsh --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/3/02 2:51:56 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'As Machiavelli pointed out, no one is willing to admit the debt that they incure to those who choose option #1. -jsh' What debt is that? Exactly. No, seriously, how do I benefit others by begging? Do I give them a needed sense of superiority? Or do I serve as an excuse for government to steal your money and give it to bureaucrats in the name of helping me? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- Alypius Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if a state did not exist, one would soon emerge because the stateless society would be so obviously suboptimal for an economy beyond the level of the hunter gatherer. ~Alypius Skinner If this is indeed obvious, please provide the explanation, because the obviousness is not evident to me. For example, when the bloated west Roman state collapsed in western Europe, the life of the average peasant probably improved, but trade also collapsed, which made society in the aggregate poorer. If the vast majority of the population were peasants, and their lives improved on average, how could society be poorer? Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
Alypius Skinner wrote So the real question is whether the optimal balance would be one of no public redistribution or some public redistribution. If there were no public redistribution, there would be no need for a state, yet if a state did not exist, one would soon emerge because the stateless society would be so obviously suboptimal for an economy beyond the level of the hunter gatherer. [...] I would certainly argue that the current level of public redistribution is above the optimum rather than below it--probably well above. But I would not argue that the optimum is zero public redistribution. Of course, this question of whether we should have an inherently redistributionist public sector is a different question than whether the public sector should micromanage the private sector. But this argument does not sound like striking a balance between compassion for our fellow man and maintaining the incentives for temptation-prone people as you first put it. But more like finding the optimal balance for the sake of our own self interest - however narrowly defined. Either way, I still cannot the logical argumnet why striking this balance is done more optimal using force, than voluntarily [btw: I do not disagree that something resembling states as we know them will emerge from a stateless society - but I do disagree that they necessarily must be based on cohersion - this I believe follows directly from your argument that some form of state is in everybodys (save very few) self interest]. - jacob braestrup - jacob
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- Jacob W Braestrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My point with the example is this: when there are so many things in life that are blatantly unfairly (if you believe in equality) distributed among us, [1]why this preoccupation with wealth / income - [2]especially when it is conceeded that effeorts to redistribute existing income / wealth will inevitably reduce future income / wealth. 1: My guess: Because wealth income are relatively easy to measure objectively, as opposed to mate satisfaction. So it is an easy proxy. It seems to be a fairly good one, too, since money is a numeraire good. 2: Does the logic/math of the 2nd Fund. Welfare Thm. imply that lump-sum redistribution, so that a more favorable market outcome obtains, necessarily lowers output? Optimization is still a calculus problem after all. -jsh __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
RE: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- Grey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (1)you can choose to be homeless, take no jobs nor responsibility, and peacefully beg from others who, if it's voluntary, can give to you (or not) with no moral problems. (This includes living with parents or other loved ones, from whom receipt of resources isn't quite begging from strangers.) (2) You can become a thief, and take other's property by force/ fraud/ in secret -- illegally, until you get caught punished. As Machiavelli pointed out, no one is willing to admit the debt that they incure to those who choose option #1. -jsh = ...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation to another merely because that other has done him no wrong. -Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- Alypius Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what if this ugly guy isn't rich--oh! You mean pecuniary benefits taken from *other* people--purely through voluntary donations of course. After all, you consider force to be (morally?) bad. I'm just looking for some consistency here. That's funny. I'm assuming that I don't really need to justify why I feel there is a difference between taxation sexual slavery. -jsh John Hull wrote: --- Jacob W Braestrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would we ever say: Uhhh, this guy is ugly and no good, bad mannered and ill tempered - but, it's no fault of his own, and he REALLY doesn't enjoy the competition for sexual partner forced upon him by society, so why don't we just force this beautiful girl to have sex with him Um, no. Force would be bad. You could sweeten the deal for her, however, using perhaps pecuinary benefits to level the field. But what if this ugly guy isn't rich--oh! You mean pecuniary benefits taken from *other* people--purely through voluntary donations of course. After all, you consider force to be (morally?) bad. I'm just looking for some consistency here. But what happens if there aren't enough people who are willing to donate? ~Alypius Skinner __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- david friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Suppose we instead assume that everyone has the same ability to convert leisure into income I'm not disputing the logic. The assumption does seem awfully unrealistic. All zygotes are created equal, except the ones with the wrong number of chromosones (oh, and maybe not some with nasty genetic predispositions), but the family one comes into along with a host of factors beyond one's control do play a role in affecting who one becomes, including the ability to convert leisure into income. -jsh __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- Jacob W Braestrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'John Hull wrote:...' Assuming you are not just joking, this implies that things such as ability to atract mates should be taken into account when redistributing income today. Mostly joking. I was more concerned with the idea that forcing marriage on people was the only way to level the playing field for mates. It does seem that fincanial security luxury goods really can sweeten the deal, at least for some people. That's not to say that such a program would be practical. However, ugly people do get shafted in life. If that could be reasonably accounted for as a component in a redistribution scheme that met the approval of the polity, then I probably wouldn't oppose it. ...it would be unfair to take money from a rich, ugly man (or woman)... They'd just pay less in taxes than a rich, beautiful person. -jsh __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why this preoccupation with wealth / income? One reason is that income can buy other things. For example, beauty is unequally distributed, but much of beauty is created rather than natural; the wealth can afford better hair stylists, have plastic surgery, avoid physically risky occupations, etc. With more money, the poor can bathe, get haircuts, wear better clothes, etc., and look better. Even love is better with money; one can go out more often, get better dates, etc. Money is also more easily redistributed than physical attributes. Moreover, government does try to reduce the benefits of better talent and better ability by taxing it so that it is less rewarding. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- david friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Suppose we instead assume that everyone has the same ability to convert leisure into income The assumption does seem awfully unrealistic. -jsh It has its limitations, but workers are quite able to control their amount of leisure on several margins: 1) the numbers of hours worked, for those with the option of overtime or else simply doing more work for the same pay, or shifting to part-time work. 2) having, or not, a second, third, etc., job, including consulting. 3) using sick leave 4) retiring earlier or later 5) being, or not, a second or third family member with a job 6) moving closer to work and spending less time commuting 7) spending more time and resources to reduce taxation (less leisure, more income) 8) students postponing their first employment to indulge in travel or graduate school. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- david friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Suppose we instead assume that everyone has the same ability to convert leisure into income I'm not disputing the logic. The assumption does seem awfully unrealistic. So does the assumption needed to make the more conventional version of the argument rigorous--that people all have the same ability to convert income into utility (i.e. the same utility function). Presumably, differences in income reflect in part differences in ability to convert leisure into income, in part differences in ability to convert income into utility. My point was that, while the first cause, considered alone, leads to the conventional conclusion that we can increase utility by transferring from rich to poor, the second leads to the opposite conclusion. -- David Friedman Professor of Law Santa Clara University [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
In a message dated 12/2/02 3:58:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- Grey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (1)you can choose to be homeless, take no jobs nor responsibility, and peacefully beg from others who, if it's voluntary, can give to you (or not) with no moral problems. (This includes living with parents or other loved ones, from whom receipt of resources isn't quite begging from strangers.) (2) You can become a thief, and take other's property by force/ fraud/ in secret -- illegally, until you get caught punished. As Machiavelli pointed out, no one is willing to admit the debt that they incure to those who choose option #1. -jsh What debt is that? Perhaps I can start begging as a way of increasing my contribution to society. DBL
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
In a message dated 12/2/02 4:03:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- Alypius Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what if this ugly guy isn't rich--oh! You mean pecuniary benefits taken from *other* people--purely through voluntary donations of course. After all, you consider force to be (morally?) bad. I'm just looking for some consistency here. That's funny. I'm assuming that I don't really need to justify why I feel there is a difference between taxation sexual slavery. -jsh Actually it would be interesting to hear someone delinate a clear distinction between taxation on money and taxation in kind.
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- david friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My point is that moral worthiness isn't being predicated of the newborn infant or fertilized ovum but of the adult that it turned into. Whatever the reasons are that I am cruel and dishonest, cruel and dishonest people deserve to have bad things happen to them. That, at least, is a moral intuition that many people find convincing. Well put. I'm not an existentialist, but I do agree to at least some extent that we make our own moral choices. My point is merely that, since some of who we become is the product of things outside of our control, even hard-hearted* policies should have a soft edge. -jsh *I don't like the term hard-hearted. It reminds me of PETA: c'mon! Is anybody really for the UNethical treatment of animals? Or do we just have different standards of ethical? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- david friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My point was that, while the first cause, considered alone, leads to the conventional conclusion that we can increase utility by transferring from rich to poor, the second leads to the opposite conclusion. Oh, okay. My bad. Sorry about that. -jsh __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
Alypius Skinner wrote Thus some sort of balance must be struck between compassion for our fellow man and maintaining the incentives for temptation-prone people (who are often the same as the incompetent or semi-competent people) to resist temptation. But where do you suppose such a balance is most accurately struck? in a public market for redistribution - or a private one? my money is on te latter - jacob braestrup
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
Jacob W Braestrup wrote: Alypius Skinner wrote Thus some sort of balance must be struck between compassion for our fellow man and maintaining the incentives for temptation-prone people (who are often the same as the incompetent or semi-competent people) to resist temptation. But where do you suppose such a balance is most accurately struck? in a public market for redistribution - or a private one? my money is on te latter - jacob braestrup All government programs are a form of redistribution. For example, public police and fire protection subsidize the safety of the poor at the expense of the rich (if I may oversimplify the class structure). So the real question is whether the optimal balance would be one of no public redistribution or some public redistribution. If there were no public redistribution, there would be no need for a state, yet if a state did not exist, one would soon emerge because the stateless society would be so obviously suboptimal for an economy beyond the level of the hunter gatherer. For example, when the bloated west Roman state collapsed in western Europe, the life of the average peasant probably improved, but trade also collapsed, which made society in the aggregate poorer. This is an example of swinging from one suboptimal extreme of public redistribution to another. I would certainly argue that the current level of public redistribution is above the optimum rather than below it--probably well above. But I would not argue that the optimum is zero public redistribution. Of course, this question of whether we should have an inherently redistributionist public sector is a different question than whether the public sector should micromanage the private sector. ~Alypius Skinner
RE: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
Wei Dai wrote: People don't mind competition if it's voluntary, but you can't opt out of economic competition. I think it's a necessary evil, not something to be desired for its own sake. Clearly some people do enjoy competition, and they should certainly be able to participate, but what's the point of forcing competition on people who hate it, besides efficiency? Sure you can opt out. Reduce your expectations. Settle for less. The same, of course, is true of e.g. athletic competition. If you aren't good enough to compete, you opt out. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan (To Bryan-a fine Mary Poppins quote) Wei Dai added here a fine contrarian note (for this list). But in the opting out, Bryan is not clear/blunt enough: (1) you can choose to be homeless, take no jobs nor responsibility, and peacefully beg from others who, if it's voluntary, can give to you (or not) with no moral problems. (This includes living with parents or other loved ones, from whom receipt of resources isn't quite begging from strangers.) (2) You can become a thief, and take other's property by force/ fraud/ in secret -- illegally, until you get caught punished. (3) You can voluntarily offer to do work/ be useful to somebody else, in return for money--welcome to the rat race. Honest voluntary, that's where I'm at and most normal folks. Because begging and stealing are not attractive options, many may wrongly fell that you can't opt out of competition. There does exist option (4): beg from the government, who will steal/ take other's money, for you. (A case could be made that most academics are in this category -- but prolly a majority of folks in the US get at least a portion of their income from gov't supported programs, depending on the indirect inclusiveness.) And the problem with gov't redistribution is that the gov't collection is NOT voluntary; it is NOT something that folks can opt out of. I truly don't see any other living alternatives, forced by reality. The free market and honest capitalism is all about (3), making (and keeping) the best voluntary agreements. And the materialist benefits available ONLY to such market participants is usually enough incentive to join up. But nobody has challenged you, Wei: do you know anybody admirable who hates competition? Ghandi comes to mind as a stereo-type, living in rags, spinning his own cotton threads, a very unhappy wife ... Tom Grey
RE: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
But nobody has challenged you, Wei: do you know anybody admirable who hates competition? Ghandi comes to mind as a stereo-type, living in rags, spinning his own cotton threads, a very unhappy wife ... Yes, perhaps the stereotype of Ghandi, but not the historical Ghandi. The real Ghandi lived surrounded by doting admirers and servants, serving him specially-prepared meals for the sake of his chronic constipation. As one wag observed, It takes an awful lot of money to keep Ghandi living in poverty. Marc Poitras
RE: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
Wei Dai wrote: you can't opt out of economic competition. Sure you can opt out. Reduce your expectations. Settle for less. Prof. Bryan Caplan Since many resources and goods are scarce and rival, in the broadest economic sense, nobody can opt out of economic competition except by dying. As Bryan Caplan implied, one can reduce one's competition by reducing one's employment, investment, and consumption of goods. But nobody living can entirely opt out. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
What is all this focus on money? - why strive for equality only on that parameter and not the more important ones?? - jacob braestrup Let me expand on this point a little. All economists are familiar with the standard declining marginal utility argument for income redistribution. I'm not sure how many realize that it depends on a specific assumption, and that if we make a different, less plausible but not wildly implausible, assumption the argument reverses. The implicit assumption is that differing incomes reflect differences in productive abilities rather than in the utility function for consumption. We thus think of a population as if it consisted of people all of whom had the same utility function, able to sell their labor at different prices--or with different income endowments. On that model, declining marginal utility of income, which is plausible although not provable, implies that the higher your income, the lower your marginal utility of income. Suppose we instead assume that everyone has the same ability to convert leisure into income and the same utility function for leisure, and the difference is in how much we value income. Further assume declining marginal utility for leisure. High income people are those who greatly value consumption, hence are willing to sell a lot of their leisure. In equilibrium, their marginal utility of income is higher than that of low income people. That must be the case, because their marginal utility of leisure is higher (they have less of it, having sold more), and in equilibrium marginal utility of leisure equals marginal utility of income times the price of leisure. -- David Friedman Professor of Law Santa Clara University [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 10:57:53AM -0800, Anton Sherwood wrote: Reminds me of a story in one of the sf magazines - an abnormally cheerful man was found to have an abnormally high level of endorphins, and was compelled to take treatment to compensate, because we can't have people running loose on what amounts to a permanent drug trip. I wonder how many read the story and thought it a good idea. (And where's my cut of that guy's excess?) If we really cared about happiness, we would just rewire everyone's brains to be happy all of the time, like this guy in the SF story. The fact that we don't spend any resources on research into this technology suggests that we don't really care about happiness. What we value are real accomplishments, and happiness is just something we use to motivate ourselves.
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
William Sjostrom wrote: Does it change the way the world behaves? A totally different question. Even if you are the pinnacle of moral knowledge, the world could ignore you. It hardly shows you're wrong. Suppose, according to some moral code, you are right, but no one pays you any attention. My point is, first, if no one pays you attention, it does not matter whether you are right, This just begs the question. It assumes that the only way something can matter is by affecting behavior. It matters to me and many other people even if it doesn't affect anyone's behavior. and second, you cannot in any event empirically verify that your moral code is in fact the correct one. This is getting too philosophical for the list. There are plenty of other places to debate moral realism. :-) William Sjostrom + William Sjostrom Senior Lecturer Department of Economics National University of Ireland, Cork Cork, Ireland +353-21-490-2091 (work) +353-21-427-3920 (fax) +353-21-463-4056 (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ucc.ie/~sjostrom/ -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mr. Banks: Will you be good enough to explain all this?! Mary Poppins: First of all I would like to make one thing perfectly clear. Banks: Yes? Poppins: I never explain *anything*. *Mary Poppins*
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- Jacob W Braestrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would we ever say: Uhhh, this guy is ugly and no good, bad mannered and ill tempered - but, it's no fault of his own, and he REALLY doesn't enjoy the competition for sexual partner forced upon him by society, so why don't we just force this beautiful girl to have sex with him Um, no. Force would be bad. You could sweeten the deal for her, however, using perhaps pecuinary benefits to level the field. That's one possibility. Whichever you choose, hurry up! I need the help. -jsh Wei Dai wrote: People don't mind competition if it's voluntary, but you can't opt out of economic competition. I think it's a necessary evil, not something to be desired for its own sake. Clearly some people do enjoy competition, and they should certainly be able to participate, but what's the point of forcing competition on people who hate it, besides efficiency? While it is may be true that many people do not enjoy the economic competition forced upon them by society (but they surely benefit from the positive externalities of this competition), is this any ground for political action?? There are many other forced kind of competition, that we (thankfully) do not consider grounds for redistribution - like the competition for mates. (I think I have stolen this point blatantly from Nozik, sorry). Would we ever say: Uhhh, this guy is ugly and no good, bad mannered and ill tempered - but, it's no fault of his own, and he REALLY doesn't enjoy the competition for sexual partner forced upon him by society, so why don't we just force this beautiful girl to have sex with him I DON'T THINK SO! And if you look at it, the case for redistribution is in fact stronger in the case of sexual partners than in the case of economic competition, since the loosers in the latter game, will at least benefit from the positive externalities of economic competition, while the loosers of the sex-game will get NOTHING! - jacob braestrup = ...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation to another merely because that other has done him no wrong. -Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- david friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To put it differently, once you take the determinist position And if we take the free will position, can't we just as easily come to the defense of Aristotlean (sp?) physics where a thrown rock moves of its own impetus until it 'decides' that it no longer has impetus and falls straight to the ground? Acknowledging that humans are the products of their environments, and allowing for that, does not imply that a radical determinist approach to life is necessary. At least, it isn't obvious to me. -jsh __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
If there were no efficiency consequences, why not equalize incomes? The answer, I maintain, is that more able and hard-working people deserve more. I don't see why, efficiency aside, more able and hard-working people deserve more. Being more able and hard-working should be reward enough by itself. Lazy and incompetent people no doubt did not consciously decide to become lazy and incompetent, so why should they be punished for it, again if efficiency is not a consideration? And another response: This is an interesting point. Suppose we carry it a little further. Cruel and dishonest people didn't choose to be cruel and dishonest. Or, if they did at some point choose to be those things, they didn't choose to be the sort of people who would make that choice. So why should they be punished for it? Part of the answer is that people do respond to incentives in the environment. Giving people an equal share of the annual economic pie regardless of their conduct will not give them any incentive to curb their antisocial impulses. But, on the other hand, there is an argument for some degree of redistribution. There is a limit to how much people can raise their competence level in response to incentives. No one is born a blank slate. Some people have a higher potential for achievement than others, and, in the genetic lottery, some people will always be born with very limited potential. Some of these persons are obviously helpless to survive without assistance even as adults, but then there are the marginal cases--people with limited educability who will eke out a marginal existence in good times but often find themselves unable to do so in bad times. Thus some sort of balance must be struck between compassion for our fellow man and maintaining the incentives for temptation-prone people (who are often the same as the incompetent or semi-competent people) to resist temptation. The biggest problem with public aid to the poor may be that it is value neutral. Very few moral demands are made on the recipients, perhaps because morality is intimately entwined with religion, and the lawmakers and opinion shapers are generally determined to keep church and state rigidly separated, apparently even in countries that have legally established churches! There is also an exaggerated concern with not imposing moral values on welfare recipients, which is a policy guaranteed to increase abuse of taxpayer generosity. ~Alypius Skinner
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
I propose that for next semester Alan Blinder and I exchange faculty positions. Blinder can assume my three-course load at Dayton and I'll assume his one(?) course load at Princeton. Blinder can eat greasy cheeseburgers in the Dayton cafeteria, and I'll dine on lobster savannah in the Princeton faculty club. Of course, I'll be the first to admit that I absolutely do not MERIT a position at Princeton. I make this proposal purely in the interest of promoting Blinder's Principle of Equity. Marc Poitras Assistant Professor of Economics University of Dayton
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 08:38:26PM -0500, Bryan D Caplan wrote: 1. The less fundamental reason to be hard-hearted is that soft- hearted people - even comparatively reasonable ones like Blinder - are hypocrites. They fret and fret about poor Americans, but barely even remember the existence of absolutely poor foreigners. There is not a word in Blinder's book about admitting more immigrants. And all of the soft-hearted social programs we have for domestics are one of the leading arguments for restricting immigration. [...] 2. The more fundamental reason to be hard-hearted is that the Principle of Equity fails to recognize differences in MERIT. If there were no efficiency consequences, why not equalize incomes? The answer, I maintain, is that more able and hard-working people deserve more. They earned it. It is insolent for the less successful to gripe about it (or for the more successful to gripe on their behalf!). I agree with your first point, but not the second one. I don't see why, efficiency aside, more able and hard-working people deserve more. Being more able and hard-working should be reward enough by itself. Lazy and incompetent people no doubt did not consciously decide to become lazy and incompetent, so why should they be punished for it, again if efficiency is not a consideration? People give merit its due in academic competition, athletic competition, artistic competition, and more. Why not economic competition? What is so hard about showing respect to the winners, and expecting the losers to keep their disappointment to themselves? People don't mind competition if it's voluntary, but you can't opt out of economic competition. I think it's a necessary evil, not something to be desired for its own sake. Clearly some people do enjoy competition, and they should certainly be able to participate, but what's the point of forcing competition on people who hate it, besides efficiency?
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
2. The more fundamental reason to be hard-hearted is that the Principle of Equity fails to recognize differences in MERIT. If there were no efficiency consequences, why not equalize incomes? The answer, I maintain, is that more able and hard-working people deserve more. They earned it. It is insolent for the less successful to gripe about it (or for the more successful to gripe on their behalf!). I think of this as Graham Nash economics. Remember his 1968 protest song Chicago (full lyrics appended below)? [Any and all comments about not even being born then are *not* welcome.] Won't you please come to Chicago For the help that we can bring We can change the world Re-arrange the world Graham Nash economics is my overly cute way of complaining about normative economics. Economists offer *opinions* on who should get this or that: the poor, the talented, the hard-working, maybe some combination of the above. I still am not persuaded that economists opinions on these issues are any more important than anyone else's opinion. Does it change the way the world behaves? I am less successful, you are more successful. I say that I am going to take part of your income, you tell me I am insolent. I say So what? I'm still taking part of your income. Now what do you do? William Sjostrom + William Sjostrom Senior Lecturer Department of Economics National University of Ireland, Cork + CHICAGO Graham Nash Though your brother's bound and gagged And they've chained him to a chair Won't you please come to Chicago Just to sing In a land that's known as freedom How can such a thing be fair Won't you please come to Chicago For the help that we can bring We can change the world Re-arrange the world It's dying ... to get better Politicians sit yourself down There's nothing for you here Won't you please come to Chicago For a ride Don't ask Jack to help you 'Cause he'll turn the other ear Won't you please come to Chicago Or else join the other side We can change the world Re-arrange the world It's dying ... if you believe in justice It's dying ... and if you believe in freedom It's dying ... let a man live his own life It's dying ... rules and regulations, who needs them Open up the door Somehow people must be free I hope the day comes soon Won't you please come to Chicago Show your face From the bottom of the ocean To the mountains on the moon Won't you please come to Chicago No one else can take your place
